Is Atheism Predicated Partially on the Belief in Evolution?

Is atheism predicated partially on the belief in evolution and the current prevailing views of science.

If so, then such a belief is subject to drastic changes as discoveries and theories

have recently arose that shatter the paradigm that is the foundation of such a belief:

Discoveries keep pushing back the inception of civilization, indefinitely back in time

Evidence of coastal civilizations existing during the ice age are arising in now inundated coastal region due to rising seas.

The concept of a missing link is no longer postulated as a bush of hominids lineages walked the earth. With what was once considered ancestors, actually being contemporary with postulated descendants. A bush of hominids actually existed as recently as 30,0000 B.C.E.

Though theories of evolution abound no working scientific model exists for the emergence of life.

Our very existence is interwoven with the anthropic principle. As such this has required scientist to postulate the multiverse to explain how the anthropic principle is mindlessly satisfied by nature. However this just substitutes one unfalsifiable believe for another.

In truth, Darwin's world has been shattered and the truth has become intractable. Even as we cope with dark matter and energy. Terms that falsely connote that we have defined them, when in fact they are no more apparent than God. As such new scientific theories continue to emerge based on the inadequacy of the standard model. This will continue into infinitum since, as God there is no means to detect these alleged entities with scientific instrumentation.

Replies to This Discussion

No, it is not "predicated" on a belief in evolution in the sense that belief in evolution is a necessary preliminary step. The two do go hand in hand to such an extent, however, that it is difficult to separate them, much like the heat and light we receive from the sun. Like heat and light, you can have one without the other, but they usually come together.

I see it at the Achilles Heel at least in the case of Hominid Evolution. Hominid Evolution should be the easiest to prove because it is the most recent, yet for the 30 years that I have been monitoring it: new models, new models, debate, debate, wars over Hobbit man, debate, debate.

On the contrary, by betting so much on that point creationists are actually undermining religion. The evidence for evolution, hominid and otherwise, is so overwhelming that creationists make religious people look stupid (or insane). We are done. I am not following this thread anymore.

And you're a perfect example of his point, Michael. You make such a fool of yourself with each post here that you have to hide your identity and even the field in which you work (I still don't believe your claims that you have a professional job).

Can we consider 'Intelligent Design' in reference to Little George W or Rick Santorum? Pat Robertson also? If 'God' is 'intelligent', would he create such as these? Or Is this the result of genetic variation, social conditioning, and insuffient exposure to a predator/prey event?